how to secure a hosted server

[eternal_noob]

I figure having to get an search warrant for a private home is a somewhat higher burden, but I may be naive.

Snowden taught us that intelligence agencies don't need a search warrant. They are above the law.

 

[Jose]

Snowden taught us that intelligence agencies don't need a search warrant. They are above the law.

I figure there's precious little I can do if an intelligence agency really wants my old emails. What I'm worried about are career-oriented district attorneys looking to make a name for themselves by persecuting whatever the pariah du jour is.

Yes, that's paranoid. It comes from having been an outsider, an "other" most of my life.

 

[eternal_noob]

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you."
-- Kurt Cobain

 

[ralphbsz]

What I do is keep the storage at home. ...

There are severe disadvantages to this scheme, though.

And: Do you really believe that you are better at securing your data against snooping than the big hosting providers, who have teams (sometimes of thousands of people) working on nothing but data safety (both engineers and lawyers)?

If that career-oriented DA that you mentioned orders his sheriff investigator to snoop your home WiFi, they're more likely to get some information, compared to your data being stored in a giant warehouse with metal walls that is carefully designed to only have encrypted connections in and out. Or if that DA sends some officers with a warrant to search for "all pictures of ..." at your house, you won't be able to stop them from taking your server, since you don't have either the physical power nor the money for lawyers that's required to stop them. On the other hand, if that DA sends the same officers to a big cloud company, the cops will sit in the lobby, and then will be sent home while the cloud company lawyers fight the subpoena for you. Look sometime at how much effort big hosting companies spend on fighting warrants and subpoenas.

And this is not a hypothetical scenario. I am involved in local political campaigning, and my ISP once received a takedown and discovery order from the lawyers for another candidate that I was campaigning against. They spend a few days looking at that takedown order and didn't hand any data over, they consulted with my attorney, and then they decided to refuse the order. Admittedly, this is not as bad as a criminal warrant, but it reinforces my conviction that I picked the correct ISP, namely one that stands behind its customers.

I think the underlying problem really ends up one of some people having ideological blinders. There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil. It is out to screw you and nothing else. In their mind, government and big business has no interest in self-preservation, and is only destructive, and un-ethical. If you start making decisions about where to place your IT workload based on that world view, you end up deciding that you need to have full control of your assets. I think that this world view is not only paranoid, it is also psychotic, and simply doesn't match the real world. Other people are free to disagree.

 

[Mjölnir]

And: Do you really believe that you are better at securing your data against snooping than the big hosting providers, who have teams (sometimes of thousands of people) working on nothing but data safety (both engineers and lawyers)?

1. This holds true until you become a competitor to your hoster. This is not a minor topic, because all the major cloud hosting providers are not just pure IT service providers, but have spread their commercial activities widely over many other markets. Giggle & M$ have been sentenced quite often by the US & EU for putting unfair hurdles onto their competitors.

2. Concerning the degree of expertise of these network & security teams: please comment on the various well known data leaks, e.g. from FreezeBook leaking user data. If they can't secure their own systems, why should I trust them they can secure mine?

think the underlying problem really ends up one of some people having ideological blinders. There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil.

Yes. Ask a mathematician: -infinity ≃ +infinity. Mathematicians & such scientific folk should be the only ones allowed to use total terms like all, every, always, ever, ... Applied to real world contexts, these are always problematic

If you start making decisions about where to place your IT workload based on that world view, you end up deciding that you need to have full control of your assets. I think that this world view is not only paranoid, it is also psychotic, and simply doesn't match the real world. Other people are free to disagree.

Yes, in part, like outlined above. I couldn't think an organisation like WikiLeaks should trust those of whom they could potentionally leak embarrassing information.

Besides all that, because you agreed to me that security mainly boils down to trust: where's the open source in the big data center scenarios you outlined above? Why should I trust s/o who in return does not transparently show me his measures to enforce security? You wrote these are secret for security reasons. Well, that's a pretty subtle & funny contradiction.

Security is mainly a fiction; but without transparency & open source it is impossible.

 

[PMc]

I think the underlying problem really ends up one of some people having ideological blinders. There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil. It is out to screw you and nothing else. In their mind, government and big business has no interest in self-preservation, and is only destructive, and un-ethical.

Contra. They absolutely have an interest in self-preservation.
Robert A. Wilson wrote in one of his novels, the borders between the European states are simply the points where two rivaling bands of robbers became too tired to continue fighting.

And this is the point that needs to be understood: there is no difference whatsoever between a government and organized crime. They certainly have an interest in self-preservation, just like the mafia has as well. They are not destructive for it's own end, but they will do any- and everything, and break any law, for their own advantage, if only they can get thru with it.
And it is entirely up to you if you want to consider such a scheme as evil and un-ethical. (It usually depends on how much one benefits from the gang one is associated with).

So, if you do things that are in the interest of your government, your data is probably safe at the hoster. But if you prefer to talk e.g. about the murders your government has commited - well, then things might look a bit different.

 

[Deleted member 30996]

I think the underlying problem really ends up one of some people having ideological blinders. There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil. It is out to screw you and nothing else. In their mind, government and big business has no interest in self-preservation, and is only destructive, and un-ethical. If you start making decisions about where to place your IT workload based on that world view, you end up deciding that you need to have full control of your assets. I think that this world view is not only paranoid, it is also psychotic, and simply doesn't match the real world. Other people are free to disagree.

I never had anything on my sites that wasn't freely available as information provided or put there for the purpose of free download. I'm in the red for what little paid hosting I've had, don't want anyone to click me, hate ads on free sites because it ruins my markup. Awardspace free sites don't have ads and their paid hosting services kept me happy.

I am not of the mind that all Govt. is evil and what goes on at the Corporate level of big business not of concern unless it concerns me on a personal level adversely.

However, people hold office and positions in high places. I was surprised at the character, or lack of it, of the people who held position in more than one U.S. Govt Federal Agency. I don't know what employment agency they hire from on a Federal Level but they must all come from the same one and you must not have to be too smart to work for one. My guess is the cutoff line less than 3 numbers in I.Q. 100 I.Q. and it's Federal Agency Employee for you.

The striking difference in how State Agencies Rules and Regs were like the Word from above and something adhered to or suffer the consequences that Sin imposed upon you.

That's what I expected from Federal Agencies and those under them at a local level when moving into public housing 13 years ago. I could not believe how little Federal Regs were given consideration or followed on either level. Shocked might convey my reaction to the less than ethical conduct in some areas of importance.

These people needed rules to follow because they were devoid in the areas of critical thought, logic, ability to follow their own standards of ethics, lousy liars and no thought of consequences to any behavior no matter how long it had gone on or how sloppy the job they had done at it as failures in following their own Regs.

You do always know what you're talking about and your wealth of experience not mine. But my experiences in this area not yours or anything you would expect as Standard Procedure. I would never assme there was anything you could learn from me, and I'm sorry it has to be this, but I wouldn't make a statement like that if I couldn't back it up with proof in the form of documentation now held on this laptop and pleasure in knowing of things to come that will make the case for me, because without me there would have been no case.

I don't ask that you give credence to any claims made here, just a day or two wait time granted me so things to come can catch up to things happening in the here and now. I can not predict the amount of noise it will make but the damage has already been done. The consequences of their actions toward someone with an area of expertise of addressing Inappropriate Behavior with consequences in pain equal that of there status and that of mine the only concern ever given.

 

[Jose]

And: Do you really believe that you are better at securing your data against snooping than the big hosting providers, who have teams (sometimes of thousands of people) working on nothing but data safety (both engineers and lawyers)?

And who routinely hand over information to governments all over the world, often without any notice to the affected accounts.

Google reports all-time high of government data requests

In Google's latest transparency report, even more governments want to know what people are doing online.

www.cnet.com

There are lots of people (some on this forum) who believe that all government and business is always evil. It is out to screw you and nothing else. In their mind, government and big business has no interest in self-preservation, and is only destructive, and un-ethical.

This has certainly been my experience. Corporations aren't strictly evil, but they're organized and optimized to make profits. Too bad if people get hurt in the process.

PG&E Falsified Gas Pipeline Safety Records, Regulators Say

The utility has been under fire for its role in the massive gas pipeline explosion in 2010 in San Bruno, Calif.

www.npr.org

Governments, on the other hand, do often behave like criminal gangs, as Pmc says.

Federal Judge Declares ‘Policing for Profit’ Unconstitutional | ACLU

www.aclu.org

I'm glad the ISPs and governments are so enlightened where you live. That is certainly not the case for me.

 

[ralphbsz]

please comment on the various well known data leaks, e.g. from FreezeBook leaking user data.

First: Facebook is not a cloud or hosting company. They don't sell IT services to others. They leaked internal data. I think in their particular case, it wasn't even them, but they were dumb enough to hand internal data to associates (such as Cambridge Analytica) that on second thought are not trustworthy.

But that being as it may: Are the big companies (even IBM, EMC, Oracle, HP, and then SRI, Northrup-Grumman or Lockheed-Martin) perfect? No. Are they on average much better than someone rolling their own? Yes, leagues better. Look at all the data leaked by small hospitals, credit card processing companies, banks and so on.

I couldn't think an organisation like WikiLeaks should trust those of whom they could potentionally leak embarrassing information.

Wikileaks is a special case, because their enemy is not regular hackers who steal data for profit, not even law enforcement agencies, but the intelligence agencies of not just one country, but of many. Wikileaks needs just about the best security imaginable; for them, using cloud or hosting companies is clearly not an option. Matter-of-fact, they should probably not use any normal computing infrastructure, since the people involved certainly have their cell phones and laptops bugged.

where's the open source in the big data center scenarios you outlined above? Why should I trust s/o who in return does not transparently show me his measures to enforce security?

Have you read the source code of the Linux software stack, in particular the TCP/IP part, in particular SSL and authentication, line by line? Ha ha, nor have I. Do you trust the people who have read it? Ha ha, nor do I. Open source does not guarantee safety. It just changes the way of thinking about software security. As a matter of record, many super-secure organizations use Linux (and other FOSS software). They trust them roughly as much as they trust IBM AIX and Cisco IOS ... which is not much. FOSS has advantages (the many eyes), and disadvantages (less controlled development process, developers are not background checked). It is not a panacea.

Imagine my house were a secure facility. Would I publicly post the blueprint for the fences? Would I post the shift schedule for the security guards? Hell no. Why not? I don't want a potential attacker looking at it, and say "The north side looks very well protected with razor wire, but on the southwest corner, the fence is only 5 feet high, there is tall grass there, and a small ridge we can jump off from, let's get over the fence there". Similarly, I don't want them to say "Oh, every Saturday morning at 3am, Adam's shift ends early, and Bob comes on shift, but we know that Bob is a drunkard and always goes to the bar Friday night (in German one would call it Stammtisch), so let's send someone to the bar to buy a few rounds (ein paar Runden spendieren), and then Saturday morning Bob is guaranteed to fall asleep while guarding the gate". Again, openness does not help security in all cases.

Security is mainly a fiction; but without transparency & open source it is impossible.

No, in some (many?) cases, secrecy enhances security. Not always, and in some cases secrecy hurts security. And in many cases, secrecy is mistaken for security: security through obscurity typically does not work. Not telling anyone how high exactly my fence is and where it runs is not sufficient; I also need to build a very sturdy and tall fence.

 

[ralphbsz]

And who routinely hand over information to governments all over the world, often without any notice to the affected accounts.

Yes, but if you read the report, you see that (a) they published the number of requests, and (b) they were able to deny 35% of the requests. So it is also true that they routinely refuse to hand over information.

I'm glad the ISPs and governments are so enlightened where you live. That is certainly not the case for me.

I put some effort in picking the right ISP for my personal e-mail and web hosting. One where I can be quite certain that they are trustworthy, and will stand behind me as much as possible. As I said above, they spend a few hours of their lawyer's time to protect me once; pretty good for a $10/month customer.

My local government ... the less that's said about that the better. Their only saving grace is that they are just too incompetent to be consistently evil. And usually, if they do something really dumb, I can get them straightened out using lawyers, but that's an expensive game.

 

[Deleted member 30996]

My local government ... the less that's said about that the better. Their only saving grace is that they are just too incompetent to be consistently evil. And usually, if they do something really dumb, I can get them straightened out using lawyers, but that's an expensive game.

Lawyers are what they are used to dealing with and they have a legal branch, too.
I'm far worse than any lawyer. I don't play their game and took it online where their rules are not in play and they lost any advantage they had.

They didn't follow their own rules when they were dealing from under the deck and thought I was beaten too badly to ever play again. That's when I went off the rails and the "train kept a rollin' all night long" and never stopped. Only paused, waiting for a plane to land.

It's a surprise visit for them. One long overdue for me and the wait only made it worse on them than before.

You haven't seen incompetence like this in your life. Or the sheer audacity of thinking this was the best action to take or start to pass the smell test. They are such rotten planners, pathetic liars and not cut out for this type of activity.

 

[Mjölnir]

ralphbsz, since you didn't comment on my argument that the major hosting providers are not pure IT service providers, but have much broader commercial concerns that may conflict with those of their clients, can I conclude that you agree to this and that it's a critical point?

[slightly OT in case anyone wants to research on this] On that item to carefully choose a service provider, see this thread concerning e-mail+ (cloud space). The two mentioned companies reside here in Berlin, Germany; Posteo claims to not even have a DB of their customers' names & adresses.

Contra. They absolutely have an interest in self-preservation.

You're actually agreeing to what ralphbsz wrote. With all respect - you're jumping in on keywords like a bull on a red flag...

And this is the point that needs to be understood: there is no difference whatsoever between a government and organized crime.

This may be true for some (at least @their top), but certainly not for all. Step aside for a moment & carefully review some comments of e.g. Jose. Governments are complex organisations; since they're run by humans, it's clear human misbehaviour results in bad actions of any government. But that doesn't mean the whole government is a criminal organisation per se. Even if I try hard, I can't see that e.g. the employees of e.g. the Dept. of Education of a otherwise out-and-out corrupt government are criminals or commit criminal acts frequently.

They certainly have an interest in self-preservation, just like the mafia has as well. They are not destructive for it's own end, but they will do any- and everything, and break any law, for their own advantage, if only they can get thru with it.
And it is entirely up to you if you want to consider such a scheme as evil and un-ethical. (It usually depends on how much one benefits from the gang one is associated with).

So, if you do things that are in the interest of your government, your data is probably safe at the hoster. But if you prefer to talk e.g. about the murders your government has commited - well, then things might look a bit different.

Sorry, but all this is over-simplified biased crackerbarrel gossip on a much more complex topic ("Stammtisch-Gerede"). Period.

 

[zirias@]

As this discussion seems to go on although there is a definitive conclusion, let me add the following questions:

Why do you trust your baker not to sell you poisoned bread?
Why don't you bake your own bread?

Sure, some will answer "What, I DO bake my own", and that's fine. But maybe you get the point

 

[Mjölnir]

As this discussion seems to go on although there is a definitive conclusion, [...]

Please sum up this definitive conclusion. To me it's not at all clear.

 

[zirias@]

Please sum up this definitive conclusion. To me it's not at all clear.

Well, simple as that: if you decide to host a server at a company, you need to trust this company. There's no way around (see what was discussed, hehe).

edit: to get a BIT more into detail, the most promising "solution" would be (of course) disk encryption, but then your way to provide the key from remote is your attack vector.

 

[PMc]

You're actually agreeing to what ralphbsz wrote.

Why shouldn't I? Are we high-school cliques where one must not agree to the other clique?

This may be true for some (at least @their top), but certainly not for all. Step aside for a moment & carefully review some comments of e.g. Jose.

I don't care if it's "true", only if it's a proper systemic description that suits as a working pragma to predict future happenings.

Governments are complex organisations;

I've heard that before, it is a short-term for "you must not say that the emperor is naked".

"it's all very complex" translates to "do not state any truth". This usually goes alongside with "there are many individuals, and you cannot know that this is true for all of them".
Both are typical destructive patterns common in socialist arguing, intending not to further knowledge of a matter, but instead to keep anybody from getting a clear view of the situation.
The purpose of this is that socialist ideology (feudal, national and international factions alike) is essentially totalitarism and demands hegemony on opinion (aka "newspeak").

since they're run by humans, it's clear human misbehaviour results in bad actions of any government.

I perceive a government as a systemic entity of it's own, with it's own genius loci (aka 'corporate identity') and working principles. Humans will adapt to that. (Nobody ever makes a political career unless they work hard on developing their own corrupt and malevolent abilities.)

But that doesn't mean the whole government is a criminal organisation per se.

That is not what I said. I said there is no difference - and in fact nobody yet was able to come up with any.

Even if I try hard, I can't see that e.g. the employees of e.g. the Dept. of Education of a otherwise out-and-out corrupt government are criminals or commit criminal acts frequently.

Try harder. I did my experiments: I grabbed one of those "grassroots political activists" who would always argue about the evil capitalist government and the virtues of communism etc.etc. - and I put that guy into a position where he could execute power over others. And he immediately developed to be the perfect fascist.
This works exactly as described in Orwell's "Animal Farm", and you can execute it anytime anywhere.

 

[PMc]

Why do you trust your baker not to sell you poisoned bread?

Because I am not the pope.

 

[PMc]

edit: to get a BIT more into detail, the most promising "solution" would be (of course) disk encryption, but then your way to provide the key from remote is your attack vector.

Well then, why don't we just not provide the key from remote?

 

[Jose]

My local government ... the less that's said about that the better. Their only saving grace is that they are just too incompetent to be consistently evil. And usually, if they do something really dumb, I can get them straightened out using lawyers, but that's an expensive game.

This is all too true. Often what saves us is that those who are truly evil are also incompetent and stupid. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Reminds of the crack that democracy is the worst form of government ever invented except for all the other forms of government we've tried. There's a hard kernel of truth in that dark humour.

 

[Mjölnir]

Why shouldn't I? Are we high-school cliques where one must not agree to the other clique?

Of course not, but you prefixed "Contra", followed by an agreement...

"it's all very complex" translates to "do not state any truth". This usually goes alongside with "there are many individuals, and you cannot know that this is true for all of them".
Both are typical destructive patterns common in socialist arguing, intending not to further knowledge of a matter, but instead to keep anybody from getting a clear view of the situation.
The purpose of this is that socialist ideology (feudal, national and international factions alike) is essentially totalitarism and demands hegemony on opinion (aka "newspeak").

Not at all. It's the invitation to consider applying differentiating views whenever a total term appears in one's arguments. Yes, we can not abandon these terms from our language, but in this special case I'm getting suspicious when someone calls all governments "criminal organisations" per se. You may want to think about what several governent do in a positive way. Of course you can then apply "That's to keep their subjects quite", but that's beyond the level where I want to participate in a discussion.

May I kindly ask you to check that this is normal human behaviour: to press all information into one's existant thinking schema / view of how the world is. If it doesn't fit easily & is contrary to what you believe is true, it must be fake and/or a trap or such.

I perceive a government as a systemic entity of it's own, with it's own genius loci (aka 'corporate identity') and working principles. Humans will adapt to that.

Yes, agreed.

(Nobody ever makes a political career unless they work hard on developing their own corrupt and malevolent abilities.)

Maybe. I don't know each & every politician (not many at all). Some l feel are integer persons, no matter wether they're in "my" political camp or not. E.g. that guy in my signature.

Try harder. I did my experiments: I grabbed one of those "grassroots political activists" who would always argue about the evil capitalist government and the virtues of communism etc.etc. - and I put that guy into a position where he could execute power over others. And he immediately developed to be the perfect fascist.
This works exactly as described in Orwell's "Animal Farm", and you can execute it anytime anywhere.

That's why democracies have tried to establish "checks & balances". Naturally, power needs controlling instances to prevent that. I don't say it works flawlessly, but IMHO there're enough examples where it has proven to be a useful setup.

 

[PMc]

Of course not, but you prefixed "Contra", followed by an agreement...

Ups. Maybe I got something wrong (I had 39.2 fever yesterday evening).

Not at all. It's the invitation to consider applying differentiating views whenever a total term appears in one's arguments. Yes, we can not abandon these terms from our language, but in this special case I'm getting suspicious when someone calls all governments "criminal organisations" per se.

Which I didn't. I said there is no fundamental difference to be found in the working principles, only moral statements of which is "good" and "bad".

You may want to think about what several governent do in a positive way. Of course you can then apply "That's to keep their subjects quite", but that's beyond the level where I want to participate in a discussion.

Not even that - I just had a hard time finding anything positive governments would do. Finally the only thing seemed to be support for free science - but that has been almost abandoned by now.

Obviousely this depends on the idea of man that one has: if one thinks people need a government to tell them what is good for them, then obviousely the government does lots of such.
But, my idea of man is different: I believe that basically all humans are to be considered equal. And therefore there cannot be anybody else who better knows what's good for you than you yourself do.
And consequentially there is no right for government to treat the people like cattle.

Next-best example:
With my online bank account, I now have to pay to read my statement, due to data privacy protection (as required by the government).
Specifically, after I login to my online bank account, I cannot access my statement unless I get a one-time-transaction-id, and this has to be sent per SMS, and obviousely I have to pay for that.
So, since this is to provide data privacy, and since only I can login to my bank account anyway, this procedure suits to protect my bank statement from being accessed by myself (without additional authentication).

And this is only one of thousands of examples, where 1) the government considers the citizens as morons, 2) the government creates regulations to protect the citizens from their own morondom, and 3) the citizens are made to pay for that protection.
Next example: people are now forced to install smoke-detectors in their sleeping-room, and pay for these. No matter if they want them or not.

Certainly, all this would be fine if we were animals kept in a stable. Because then, obviousely, the farmer would be expected to do everything to protect his investment in the stable and the animals.

So, I am asking You: do You indeed consider yourself a piece of cattle, too stupid to know by yourself what is good for you, and therefore in the need to be kept by a government, being not a human person, but just some production goods owned by the government?

May I kindly ask you to check that this is normal human behaviour: to press all information into one's existant thinking schema / view of how the world is.

Yes, we do training for that.
It works like that: you decide on a timeframe, say four weeks, and an ideology, say a proselyting christian creationist. Then, for that given timeframe, You try to understand and follow all the arguments of that ideology, and convince everybody that you actually believe in it (for that to succeed you have to indeed believe in it).
Then, when timeframe is over, you choose another ideology, say, this time, a stalinist. And so on, until you understand how these things happen to work.

This is training like it is done in secret societies, or -to a lesser extent- for psychological warfare.

Maybe. I don't know each & every politician (not many at all). Some l feel are integer persons, no matter wether they're in "my" political camp or not. E.g. that guy in my signature.

Well, I keep it with Dylan Hunt when he stated "I trust Tyr to be Tyr".
So, I think there is no absolute quality of being integer or trustworthy - it is all relative, and any person has certain qualities, and any person's mind will change under certain influences.
But then there is a science of the mind (sadly, only in a rudimentary stage in this current civilisations) that can tell us about these influences.

Furthermore, an absolute quality of integrity is not even needed in anyone, *if* you have developed your own personality. An idol, a perfect leader figure, or such, is only desired by those who did not go the long way to figure out their own qualities and limits and to aquire self-awareness.

That's why democracies have tried to establish "checks & balances". Naturally, power needs controlling instances to prevent that. I don't say it works flawlessly, but IMHO there're enough examples where it has proven to be a useful setup.

Yes, checks&balances is the american term. In Germany, where I went to high-school, we were taught that there are three bodies on which democracy is founded, so that the horrors of the nazi-dicatorship should not be possible to repeat. These are the legislation, the administration and the jurisdiction - which are supposed to be independent from each other.

But then, this safety-net has been abandoned for quite a while now, and there is no longer a working separation into three independent bodies. The trick here is to abuse science: formally these three bodies continue to exist, but in practice all three of them have to obey to what is "scientifically true".
The latter can easily be manipulated, because scientists depend on money from the government. Furthermore, lots of so called "social sciences" have been created, and these now demand to produce "truth" that is equally reliable than the findings from hard sciences. Which certainly isn't the case, but can still be used to design governmental decisions.

All this is known for a long time, it was documented already in 1971.

 

[debguy]

step 1: watch modem light. step 2: unplug if it lights up.

more and more configuration is needed every day it seems, and the configs are every less likely to be "self conflicting" and overly complex. dbus is a great example of somethign that "has gone wild" (comes un-configured relatively, needs a big team to configure it). tcp6 is harder than tcp4 but I won't bother discussing.

you could write a custom app that rules over the PHY before the kernel does, assuming the kernel is secure. that's about the only way. even if the kernel wasn't secure it'd work unless your attacker had your compiled address and so on.

your bus is likely not secure (do you have some asian PC board? or some bus from an HP server system bsd doesn't have drivers for?). your video hardware is not secure.

"if you mean real security" is what i meant, not including bus and damaged eufi or bios.

why did you want to be secure again? what is your address?

 

[debguy]

"Security mainly boils down to trust"

well. people who don't have your trust can control you and also be un-trustworthy. and still you may have no choice. that is politics also.

 

[Mjölnir]

We're clealy moving OT, so this is my last reply in this direction. If you want to move on, please open another thread in Off-Topic or PM me.

Which I didn't. I said there is no fundamental difference to be found in the working principles, only moral statements of which is "good" and "bad".

The difference between "is a criminal organisation" & "like a criminal organisation" is quirky & does not provide any substantial difference in this case.

Not even that - I just had a hard time finding anything positive governments would do. Finally the only thing seemed to be support for free science - but that has been almost abandoned by now.

Build & maintain infrastructure for education, traffic & energy, judicature & law enforcement, healthcare, defence, provision & intervention like fire workers & emergency service. In some countries, add telco to this list. This list is by far not complete, but this has has evolved to be public will over some centuries. Even if I try very very hard & really try to take your position seriously, honestly & open minded, I can easily find numerous examples where this added benefits to my life & of others, and I can not see any criminal act in extinguishing a fire or giving 1st aid to a victim of a traffic accident. I once had to call the police to protect me from my landlord because his sons went into my flat & touched me physically. They told them "ok guys, there're no witnesses, but now we have an eye on this, so behave well" & I had my peace afterwards. I don't say there are no criminal policemen, espc. not in, let's say Texas, nevertheless, you got the point.

Obviousely this depends on the idea of man that one has: if one thinks people need a government to tell them what is good for them, then obviousely the government does lots of such.

See above: it has evolved over time that the people want a government. If you do not agree to this, you've got a very big problem & should seek psychological assistence. I do not say this condescending, but I'm serious with this statement.

But, my idea of man is different: I believe that basically all humans are to be considered equal.

This is complete nonsense. In contrast, all people are different. Of course, we share common properties (but to a varying degree). I do agree to that (in theory) all people are equal before the law. The fact that this does not hold true in practice, does not make your nonsense statement true. Again, I do not mean this in an elitist fashion. No matter, let's say how dumb my plumber is, he shall be payed fair & be treated kindly. And s/he deserves the best FreeBSD s/he can get to run on his/her laptop...

And therefore there cannot be anybody else who better knows what's good for you than you yourself do.
And consequentially there is no right for government to treat the people like cattle.

See above. You can derive any nonsense from a false prerequisite. Given that the average IQ is only ~104 (!!!) -- that's fairly low -- I'm pretty sure that the average people do not know what's good for them.

With my online bank account, I now have to pay to read my statement, due to data privacy protection (as required by the government). [...]

It's your free decision to change your bank, e.g. GLS (Germany) or another cooperative bank. Don't tell me "but they do not offer a free account, while others do". You get what pay for. If it's called free, usually it's not -- you pay with you data & personal information instead of money.

And this is only one of thousands of examples, where 1) the government considers the citizens as morons, 2) the government creates regulations to protect the citizens from their own morondom, and 3) the citizens are made to pay for that protection.

See above. Please try to take my position & follow my arguments.

Next example: people are now forced to install smoke-detectors in their sleeping-room, and pay for these. No matter if they want them or not.

Yes, please. I'm not the only one who wants to be alarmed & protected from a fire in his/her neighbours flat. It is paranoid to see this as "the government treats me as cattle". And again, have in mind the magic number 104.

So, I am asking You: do You indeed consider yourself a piece of cattle, too stupid to know by yourself what is good for you, and therefore in the need to be kept by a government, being not a human person, but just some production goods owned by the government?

Suggestive discourse tactics (rethorical question) is considered bas style by the receipient.

So, I think there is no absolute quality of being integer or trustworthy - it is all relative, and any person has certain qualities, and any person's mind will change under certain influences.

I appreciate that in principle, you're able to apply differentiating views.

But then, this safety-net has been abandoned for quite a while now, and there is no longer a working separation into three independent bodies. The trick here is to abuse science: formally these three bodies continue to exist, but in practice all three of them have to obey to what is "scientifically true".

News headline of today: former president of France sentenced to 1 + 2 years probation in captivity due to bribery. At least this is one example to show we're not living in Armageddon, and France is not a banana republic where a dictator can command the judges to convict his enemies.

The latter can easily be manipulated, because scientists depend on money from the government.

I agree that this is a very critical & delicate topic. I'd be glad if stronger measures were in place to protect free & independant science.

Furthermore, lots of so called "social sciences" have been created, and these now demand to produce "truth" that is equally reliable than the findings from hard sciences. Which certainly isn't the case, but can still be used to design governmental decisions.

Agreed, too. The so-called social "sciences" should not be called as such, and they should increase their efforts to seek assistance from statisticians & other mathematicians.
Reminder: we're OT see @top.

 

[Mjölnir]

Trihexagonal, YMMD. I already derived from some of your other posts that you are among the brightest minds here; some seem confusing, though, but that might be because we mere mortals can never reach the level of insight that you are blessed with.
Since I can not click 5 times on Like, you get them here 5/5:

Spoiler: @PMc

PMc, please try to convince me that this is not some individuals in the St. Louis HUD voilating their duties, but a systemic offend against Trihexagonal & him "beeing treated as cattle", and that the opportunities he has & took to defend himself are not "checks & balances", but that the DOJ & federal HUD (Washington, DC) chiming in on this case is a false flag operation to "treat him as a moron". Thx in advance.